Bablu Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 3535 Jhar

                                         1

IN THE      HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     Cr. Revision No. 939 of 2009
                               -------

Bablu Mandal                                 ...... .... Petitioner
                               Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Tulsi Devi                                 ..... .... Opp. Parties
                               --------
CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
                               --------
For the Petitioner             : Mr. N. P. Choudhary, Advocate
For the State                  : Ms. Lily Sahay, A.P.P
For the Opp. Party No.2        : Mr. P. P. N. Roy, Sr. Advocate
                                 Mr. Pandey A. N. Roy, Advocate
                               --------

C.A.V. On:- 09.08.2023                            Pronounced On:- 16/09/2023


      Heard the parties.

The petitioner Bablu Mandal has filed this revision application against the

judgment dated 08.09.2009, passed by Sri Chandra Prakash Asthana, learned

Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Cr. Appeal No. 11/2009, whereby and wherein, learned

Sessions Judge, Jamtara dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.06.2009, passed by Sri

Ramjeet Yadav, learned S.D.J.M., Jamtara in P.C.R. Case No. 207/2003, holding

the petitioner Bablu Mandal guilty of offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian

Penal Code and thereby, sentencing him to undergo S.I for one year.

The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of a complaint petition filed

by the opposite party No.2 Tulsi Devi, alleging therein that she was married to the

petitioner in the year 1995. After marriage, she resided in her matrimonial home

and after one year of her marriage, she became pregnant. She was asked to abort

her pregnancy and when the opposite party No.2 refused, she was tortured. The

accused persons started demanding Rs.15,000/- as dowry and to enforce the

demand, she was tortured and ultimately, she was driven away from her

matrimonial home.

In order to prove its case, the opposite party No.2 has adduced oral evidence.

The petitioner has adduced both oral and documentary evidence, in support

of his case to the effect that the opposite party No2 was suicidal in nature and he

had filed an application for judicial separation. On the basis of the evidence

available on record, both the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court

have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner.

Mr. N. P. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner was submitted that

the complainant has made general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner. It

was further submitted on the basis of same evidence the learned Trial Court has

acquitted the in-laws of opposite party No.2 and convicted the petitioner.

Mr. P. P. N. Roy, learned senior counsel for the opposite party No.2

submitted that both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court

have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner and as such,

this Court has no jurisdiction to revisit the facts of this case.

From perusal of the oral testimony of the witnesses adduced by the opposite

party No.2, it transpires that the opposite party No.2 Tulsi Devi has been examined

as P.W.2. She has stated that she was married to the petitioner. After marriage,

there was demand of Rs.15,000/- and to enforce the demand, she was tortured. The

accused persons also tried to terminate her pregnancy.

In her cross-examination, she has stated that prior to filing of the complaint

case, she was in jail for eight days for causing burn injuries to her father-in-law.

She has admitted that she has filed this case after being released on bail. She has

also stated that she cannot give the specific date when her ornaments were

snatched from her.

Abni Gorai P.W.1 is the father of opposite party No.2. He has stated that

after marriage of his daughter with the petitioner, there was demand of Rs.15,000/-

and to enforce the demand, his daughter was tortured. The accused persons have

also pushed her in the well. He has stated that the petitioner and his family

members also instituted a police case against them. In his cross-examination, he

has further stated that he had not seen the petitioner, torturing his daughter. He has

also admitted that his daughter had caused burn injuries to her father-in-law by

throwing hot boiling rice on him. It is also admitted that her daughter had gone to

jail in a case and after being released on bail, she has filed this case. He has further

stated that apart from this case, another case for the offence under Section 498(A)

of the Indian Penal Code has been filed by his daughter, which is still pending.

Sadanand Mandal P.W.3 and Duryodhan Mandal P.W.4 have stated that the

opposite party No.2 was married to the petitioner and after marriage, there was

demand of Rs.15,000/-. To enforce the demand, she was tortured and ultimately,

she was driven away from her matrimonial home.

Sadanand Mandal P.W.3 in his cross-examination has admitted that the

opposite party No.2 Tulsi Devi had gone to jail in a case for attempting to commit

murder of her father-in-law and subsequently, this case was filed after she was

released on bail. He has stated that he had not seen the petitioner, torturing the

opposite party No.2. He has also stated that he cannot say the date and time when

the ornaments of the opposite party No.2 was snatched by the accused persons.

Duryodhan Mandal P.W.4 has stated that his sister had gone to jail in a case

for attempting to commit murder of her father-in-law and after being released on

bail, this case has been instituted.

Lakhu Mandal P.W.5 did not appear for his examination after charge.

Accordingly, his examination-in-chief will not be the leading evidence.

Petitioner has examined Bindeswari Rai D.W.1. He has proved the plaint of

Title Matrimonial Case No. 19/2002, which was marked as Exhibit-A.

From perusal of the documentary evidence, it appears that the application for

judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the

petitioner being Title Matrimonial Case No. 19/2002, in which, he has taken the

plea that the opposite party No.2 had attempted to commit suicide. Charge-sheet of

G.R. Case No.182/2003 has been filed, in which, opposite party No.2 Tulsi Devi

was an accused. This case was filed under Sections 307 & 324 of the Indian Penal

Code for attempting to commit murder of her father-in-law.

From the aforesaid facts, it transpires that though the allegation leveled by

opposite party No.2 and her witnesses that after marriage, there was demand of

Rs.15,000/- and to enforce the demand, she was tortured and ultimately, she had to

leave her matrimonial home, but no specific date on which the demand was made

has been mentioned. It is just general assertion against the petitioner by the

opposite party No.2 and her witnesses. The witnesses of opposite party No.2 have

very fairly admitted that they had not seen the petitioner, torturing her. It further

appears that opposite party No.2 had gone to jail in a criminal case, in which, she

had attempted to commit murder of her father-in-law by throwing hot boiling rice

on him and after she was released on bail, the complaint case was filed.

Though both the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court have

come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner, but both the

Courts have not considered the aforesaid facts that the opposite party No.2 had not

substantiated her allegation by means of cogent evidence. It has also not been

considered that the present case was filed after she was released on bail in a case

for attempting to commit murder of her father-in-law.

From the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the opposite party No.2 has

failed to prove its case against the petitioner for the offence under Section 498(A)

of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts.

This revision application is accordingly, allowed.

The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned

Trial Court is set aside.

Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

(Ambuj Nath, J.) B.S/-